Ok, I'm a high school photography student. This is my first year, but I'm really enjoying it. Anyway I was just wondering what anyone thought about Tri-X film since it is about all I have been using. The only reason I bought this kind is because it is available at most places... thanks!

-- Rachel (mellierae@yahoo.com), February 22, 2001

Answers

If you like the results you are getting you should stick with it. While Tri-X has been around for a long time and there are newer films available, some of the best 35mm work I have ever seen has been on Tri- X. You could certainly do worse. Its not a bad choice for a first B&W film.

-- Joe Miller (jmmiller@poka.com), February 22, 2001.

Tri-X has been around for over 50 years. It used to be very popular among photojournalists (recently displaced by digital). While not as fine grained as some of the newer films (TMax, for example), it still is a great film!

-- Johnny Motown (johnny.motown@att.net), February 23, 2001.

Try the TX-P which is the professional version... finer grain and better tones also.

-- Scott Walton (f64sw@hotmail.com), February 23, 2001.

Rachel: If you are working in 35mm, there will be only one type of TriX available, the one with a speed rating of 400. In other film formats there is a TriX Professional film available that is rated at 320. For most general purpose work, the 400 speed film is the one preferred by most photographers. It has more lattitude for error and is therefore easier to work with outside the studio. The film and developer combination of TriX and D76 has stood the test of time. The two were literally made for each other and are used today as the standard by which we judge other films and developers. Many photographers today elect to use Kodak's TMax 400 film, but I still prefer TriX myself. TMax is a lot pickier about exposure and development, and, therefore, has a lot less lattitude for error.

-- Ken Burns (kenburns@twave.net), February 24, 2001.

Tri-X developed in PMK Pyro is about as good as it gets.

-- David Parmet (david@parmet.net), February 25, 2001.

Yes, its a great place to start, or to use for years for that matter. Its an industry standard. Don't mess with the T Max films, they are made to be processed at exacting standards of time and temperature- too exacting for the kitchen sink....

You might try the slower film, Pan-X, as a contrast to see what a finer grain film looks like-

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), February 27, 2001.

Forget about Pan-X (Panatomic-X). It was a wonderful film. Was.

Kodak discontinued it when they introduced TMax films at least 10 years ago, if memory serves.

-- Charlie Strack (charlie_strack@sti.com), February 28, 2001.

Tri-X is a wonderful film. Both kinds...but as was pointed out, with 35mm, you have only one choice. Kodak makes both only in 120. Many believe that Tri-X has a kind of timeless distinctive look to it that is hard to describe, but which many like. One of my favorite photograpers who's still living is George Tice. I took a workshop from him and he was a wonderful teacher. Find some of his work on the web and enjoy some Tri-X.

-- John Sarsgard (sarsgard@yahoo.com), March 01, 2001.

Hi Rachel.

I have been doing my own B&W developing & printing for about two years and am mostly using Kodak Tri-X pan (that's 400 ISO for 35mm film) at the moment. I too find it readily available where I live, but I have also heard that a lot of photographers like it for it's wide latitude & nice grain. I'm going to keep using it until I become very familiar with it, learning how it responds to various light situations etc. At this stage I've only exposed it at 400 ISO, and am only using one developer (Ilford's ID 11 1:1) so there are lots more variables I haven't tried yet.

If I have exposed a neg correctly it seems to give nice skin tones, but if I have under-exposed and/or enlarge the neg considerably, the grain is much more obvious and doesn't always suit the subject material (doesn't look so good with portraits of children for example). It depends what kind of 'look' you want, I know some people really like the Tri-X grain, so it comes down to personal preference. Hope this helps. Also, check out the B&W World Film & Processing Forum threads - there are lots of old threads relating to Tri-X, which I found interesting reading.

Chris - you mentioned 'Pan-X' film. Did you mean Kodak Plus-X pan (35mm film, 125 ISO)?

-- Janice Mackay (jmackay64@hotmail.com), March 01, 2001.

TriX is a wonderful film. However, I've moved to Ilford's HP5+ film. Unlike TriX, the real speed is 400 and the grain is somewhat better than TriX (hence the "+", Ilford improved their older technology films in the 90's). The tonality of both films is excellent.

The other big reason I switched to Ilford is due to Kodak's lack of support for their films in general. But I doubt Kodak will discontinue TriX, I think it's still the best selling B&W film around.

Cheerio

-- floren (flcpge@yahoo.com), March 10, 2001.

Tri-X 400 is great, T-Max 400 when set at 320 and developed a minute or so below tri-x time will give good results.

-- John L. blue (bluescreek@hotmail.com), April 20, 2001.

Yes, Tri-X is still the best film around but is impossible to find it in 120 format in my area despite my repeated requests for it.

Plus-X is also good. Anyone care to comment on Verichrome Pan?

-- jay (jpott@mindspring.com), September 30, 2001.